Subscribe to my Feed
« How ethical is InBev’s push to oust Anheuser-Busch’s board? | Home | Jackson, Obama and Fox: who owes whom an apology here? »
How effective was the White House’s apology to Berlusconi?
By Lauren | July 9, 2008
Just imagine: you’re the President of the United States, attending the final G8 conference of your Presidential term. The cameras are flashing, hands are being shaken, it’s a fabulous opportunity to strut your “leader of the free world” stuff. Then you learn that one of your aides included in the press kit for U.S. reporters a biography that describes the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, as “one of the most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for governmental corruption and vice,” then goes on to insult Berlusconi in a variety of ways for several pages.
Ouch.
Clearly, someone in the White House press office not only neglected to review the press kit, but failed to communicate two important points to the press office staff: first, that it’s a really bad idea to insult the leaders of friendly foreign governments (especially in print) and, second, that plagiarism is unethical. If the aide in question had taken the trouble to research and write an original piece, the White House probably wouldn’t have had to apologize to the Italian government today.
And what an apology it was: stiff, formal and, in my view, utterly ineffective. Bush aide Tony Fratto said that “the sentiments expressed in the biography do not represent the views of President Bush, the American government, or the American people.” All of that may well be true, but how cold can you get? That’s not an apology, it’s a legalistic disclaimer of the sort you see at the end of movie credits. Fratto went on to apologize to Italy and to the Prime Minister for “this very unfortunate mistake.” While Fratto’s choice of phrase might have been calculated to minimize the offense involved, my personal opinion is that, by resorting to “diplomatspeak,” Fratto simply added insult to the original injury. Worst of all, the White House didn’t even offer the apology until after the Italian government complained formally yesterday. What could they possibly have been waiting for?
President Bush has said that he and Berlusconi are “good friends.” If that’s true, I would hope that he privately apologized to Berlusconi in a far warmer, more personal way than Fratto did. (This is, after all, the man who winked at the Queen of England - we know that President Bush can be casual as all get-out when he chooses to be.) Prime Minister Berlusconi undoubtedly understands that the President can’t keep personal track of every member of the White House staff, and that it’s not fair to hold the President responsible for the tastelessness of a lower-level functionary. What is eminently fair, however, is to expect the President himself, as well as his spokesperson, to express some genuine regret over the insult offered and to apologize sincerely for the damage done.
Topics: Apologies, Social Ethics |
July 12th, 2008 at 5:52 am
If I remember right it was at the beginning of Bush’s first administration that he disregarded Clinton’s plan to apologize to the Italian-Americans for jailing so many of them during world war 2. Italy in reality has contributed more to worl culture than any other country and proves it even now by having more UNESCO World Heritage sights tha all other nations. Why is it that the media crucifes Italians and also Gay people with noconsequence but will do a thousand mea culpas if they dare speak of Blacks, Jews or Israel? Remember, if it wasn’t for an Italian the rest of you haters would be back on some dirty Russian Shtetel or jungle in Africa
July 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Hi Gary,
While I can’t agree with some of your sentiments, I certainly recognize and appreciate the enormous contribution that Italy has made and continues to make to world culture. And you’re right - nobody has any business crucifying anybody else. Thanks for writing in.
Lauren
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
It’s amazing